For those of you who haven't seen this.. the great Christopher Walken vs Honey Boo Boo feud orchestrated by Screen Junkies:
EYE ON A CRAZY PLANET
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Friday, April 12, 2013
Government funded hate in Alberta
I met Col Halevy last night at an event - he has some very revealing information on The Source:
Blackadder: Back and Forth
The Swan Song of the wonderful Blackadder series with Rowan Atkinson and the rest of the cast reunited 10 years after the series had ended.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
100 million murders later and the NDP still learns nothing from communism
Communism: Murdering more people than Hitler in the name of a totalitarian ideology since 1945..and counting
Stupid Canadian communists complain about being called communists
There's stupid, there's mentally ill, and then there's that fusion of the two which is rabble.caThis is the item that their little red underpants are all twisted over.
Rabble is the gift that just keeps on giving...
Oldest dinosaur embryo fossils discovered in China
Palaeontologists working in China have unearthed the earliest collection of fossilized dinosaur embryos to date. The trove includes remains from many individuals at different developmental stages, providing a unique opportunity to investigate the embryonic development of a prehistoric species.
Robert Reisz, a palaeontologist at the University of Toronto in Mississauga, Canada, and his colleagues discovered the sauropodomorph fossils in a bone bed in Lufeng County that dates to the Early Jurassic period, 197 million to 190 million years ago. The site contained eggshells and more than 200 disarticulated bones — the oldest known traces of budding dinosaurs, the researchers report online today in Nature1."Intactivist" pro-foreskin weirdos set to protest Oprah
Seriously, if your life has reached the stage where you have nothing better to do than obsess about foreskins, you've taken some pretty bad turns along the path.These people truly are strange...
Giant Jaffa Cakes developed - could be used for psychological abuse
However, aside from the enormous calorie threat, there is also speculation it could be used for spousal psychological abuse. On the plus side, it'd be pretty tasty abuse.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
A failure of justice
The heartbreaking story of Rehtaeh Parsons, who killed herself in the aftermath of a gang rape points to a justice system that completely failed her.
There are other culprits as well, most obviously the rapists. Her ordeal was compounded by deplorable people in her community who rather than offer support, taunted her through social media.
But when someone sends around pictures of a 15 year old being raped, it is distribution of child pornography and there should have been prosecutions.
We need tougher sentencing for sexual assault in this country and police who prosecute violent felons instead of concentrating on those who give cultural offense.
More on this here and here
There are other culprits as well, most obviously the rapists. Her ordeal was compounded by deplorable people in her community who rather than offer support, taunted her through social media.
But when someone sends around pictures of a 15 year old being raped, it is distribution of child pornography and there should have been prosecutions.
We need tougher sentencing for sexual assault in this country and police who prosecute violent felons instead of concentrating on those who give cultural offense.
More on this here and here
Bernie Farber's cognitive impairment
This is going to be one of those supercilious, parochial pieces referring to a blog piece written about still another blog posting, so if you're on-board for something as superfluous, keep reading...
The Huffington Post just published an article by the former head of the now defunct Canadian Jewish Congress, Bernie Farber, who is also a failed Liberal Party candidate for a seat in Ontario's provincial legislature.
Farber's article is all about taking issue with another Huff Po piece written by Frank Dimant, the current head of the Jewish advocacy organization B'nai Brith. In Dimant's piece, he notes that Canadian Jewish voter sentiment has moved from the Liberal Party to the Conservatives in the last few years, largely, he asserts, on the basis of the Harper government's strong support for Israel.
Among other prognostications, Dimant wrote that "There is already a movement that wants to neutralize Jewish support for the Conservative Party and the mantra is that all three parties have the same agenda regarding Israel, a two-state solution, so why do we have to support the Conservatives? In a well-orchestrated campaign we will soon begin to see a new Jewish agenda being proposed by some, which will advocate that Jewish community adjust its focus to Aboriginal issues, child poverty, health care and social housing."
Apparently very sensitive to criticism of the Liberal party and the potential shift against Israel it will take if his choice for leader takes the helm, Farber lashed out at Dimant, accusing the B'nai Brith head of launching an "attack on Canadian Jews who would dare identify themselves as Liberals."
It doesn't require a particularly close reading of Dimant's article to observe that no such attack is there, only a challenge to Conservatives to retain the Jewish vote and noting the politicized environment within that community.
Distorting things further, Farber spends a great deal of ink regarding his assertion that Dimant "insinuates that there is something "new" about Canadian Jews taking an interest in Aboriginal issues, child poverty and social housing. "
For Farber to actually be correct, it would necessitate the term "adjust its focus" meaning the same thing as beginning something "new."
He then digresses into the Jewish community's interest in social justice as manifested in Aboriginal rights, social housing, etc. All that is good and fine, but as is not uncommon for him, Farber completely missed (or obfuscated) the point of the matter.
It is no secret that an interest in Israel and its well-being is of major importance to a large segment of Canadian Jews. But that interest is certainly not to the exclusion of other concerns, and Dimant's point was that the Liberals in the Jewish community would be trying to readjust priorities in order to serve the party's electoral interests. A point that Farber's piece seems to unwittingly confirm.
Interestingly, Dimant even didn't challenge the idea that the "mantra" of all parties is to take an equal stand on Israel, though the facts would suggest otherwise. The Conservatives have taken a strong, unequivocally pro-Israel stance, the New Democrats have two Deputy Leaders, Libby Davies and Megan Leslie, who are openly hostile to Israel, and the Liberal Party falls somewhere in between, although perhaps leaning slightly towards Israel more than the Palestinian side.
But as Mitch Wolfe described in yet another Huff Po piece, that may change significantly assuming Justin Trudeau, whom Farber has endorsed, becomes the Liberal Party leader. Under Trudeau, there is every indication the Liberals will be even less favorable to the Jewish state. Justin Trudeau's brother Alexandre, who has the distinction of being his sibling's senior policy adviser, has cooperated with Iran's state propaganda service to make a pro-Iran, anti-Israel documentary, which clearly reflects his sentiments on the middle east situation.
Perhaps Bernie wanted to garner favor with his political party by changing the subject to deflect from his party selling Israel down the river. On the other hand, maybe he simply didn't understand Dimant's article.
The latter may indeed be the explanation. Last month on twitter, Farber implied opposition to a Toronto City Council motion giving amnesty to illegal immigrants was "racist." When I challenged him on that, his responses became incoherent, suggesting he didn't actually understand the issues he was discussing.
Bernie has every right to extol the supposed virtues of his political party and his chosen candidate. He has every right to promote the Liberal Party and his candidate as being the best choice for Canadian voters, though many would disagree. But Farber is perceived by some as a spokesperson for, and representative of Canada's Jewish community. This is very problematic when someone who has such little apparent regard for free speech is being presented as a community leader. He may represent the Liberal Party and the Justin Trudeau faction within it, but the only Jew on whose behalf Bernie Farber speaks is Bernie Farber.
The Huffington Post just published an article by the former head of the now defunct Canadian Jewish Congress, Bernie Farber, who is also a failed Liberal Party candidate for a seat in Ontario's provincial legislature.
Farber's article is all about taking issue with another Huff Po piece written by Frank Dimant, the current head of the Jewish advocacy organization B'nai Brith. In Dimant's piece, he notes that Canadian Jewish voter sentiment has moved from the Liberal Party to the Conservatives in the last few years, largely, he asserts, on the basis of the Harper government's strong support for Israel.
Among other prognostications, Dimant wrote that "There is already a movement that wants to neutralize Jewish support for the Conservative Party and the mantra is that all three parties have the same agenda regarding Israel, a two-state solution, so why do we have to support the Conservatives? In a well-orchestrated campaign we will soon begin to see a new Jewish agenda being proposed by some, which will advocate that Jewish community adjust its focus to Aboriginal issues, child poverty, health care and social housing."
Apparently very sensitive to criticism of the Liberal party and the potential shift against Israel it will take if his choice for leader takes the helm, Farber lashed out at Dimant, accusing the B'nai Brith head of launching an "attack on Canadian Jews who would dare identify themselves as Liberals."
It doesn't require a particularly close reading of Dimant's article to observe that no such attack is there, only a challenge to Conservatives to retain the Jewish vote and noting the politicized environment within that community.
Distorting things further, Farber spends a great deal of ink regarding his assertion that Dimant "insinuates that there is something "new" about Canadian Jews taking an interest in Aboriginal issues, child poverty and social housing. "
For Farber to actually be correct, it would necessitate the term "adjust its focus" meaning the same thing as beginning something "new."
He then digresses into the Jewish community's interest in social justice as manifested in Aboriginal rights, social housing, etc. All that is good and fine, but as is not uncommon for him, Farber completely missed (or obfuscated) the point of the matter.
It is no secret that an interest in Israel and its well-being is of major importance to a large segment of Canadian Jews. But that interest is certainly not to the exclusion of other concerns, and Dimant's point was that the Liberals in the Jewish community would be trying to readjust priorities in order to serve the party's electoral interests. A point that Farber's piece seems to unwittingly confirm.
Interestingly, Dimant even didn't challenge the idea that the "mantra" of all parties is to take an equal stand on Israel, though the facts would suggest otherwise. The Conservatives have taken a strong, unequivocally pro-Israel stance, the New Democrats have two Deputy Leaders, Libby Davies and Megan Leslie, who are openly hostile to Israel, and the Liberal Party falls somewhere in between, although perhaps leaning slightly towards Israel more than the Palestinian side.
But as Mitch Wolfe described in yet another Huff Po piece, that may change significantly assuming Justin Trudeau, whom Farber has endorsed, becomes the Liberal Party leader. Under Trudeau, there is every indication the Liberals will be even less favorable to the Jewish state. Justin Trudeau's brother Alexandre, who has the distinction of being his sibling's senior policy adviser, has cooperated with Iran's state propaganda service to make a pro-Iran, anti-Israel documentary, which clearly reflects his sentiments on the middle east situation.
Perhaps Bernie wanted to garner favor with his political party by changing the subject to deflect from his party selling Israel down the river. On the other hand, maybe he simply didn't understand Dimant's article.
The latter may indeed be the explanation. Last month on twitter, Farber implied opposition to a Toronto City Council motion giving amnesty to illegal immigrants was "racist." When I challenged him on that, his responses became incoherent, suggesting he didn't actually understand the issues he was discussing.
Bernie has every right to extol the supposed virtues of his political party and his chosen candidate. He has every right to promote the Liberal Party and his candidate as being the best choice for Canadian voters, though many would disagree. But Farber is perceived by some as a spokesperson for, and representative of Canada's Jewish community. This is very problematic when someone who has such little apparent regard for free speech is being presented as a community leader. He may represent the Liberal Party and the Justin Trudeau faction within it, but the only Jew on whose behalf Bernie Farber speaks is Bernie Farber.
Islamists upset with topless feminists of Femen
The values of Islam and those of the western world are in many ways in stark conflict with each other.
It explains a lot of why contemporary Islamists and Marxists often make common cause. Both have disdain for individual rights and freedoms, no respect for free speech (other than their own), and of course there's the whole 'killing people who don't agree with you' thing, of which those two totalitarian ideologies have long and storied histories.
In fairness, Islam isn't the only religion to have gone through such a phase. Christianity was much the same during the Middle Ages. But of concern is the fact that Islamists today are behaving the way The Inquisition did five hundred years ago.
If criticism of the totalitarian aspects of Islam is "Islamophobia", then Islamophobia is going to be a growth industry. But like Nazism and Marxism, Islamism is going to have its advocates. What makes Islamists particularly disgusting is the way they claim to be victims when they are criticized for seeking out and victimizing innocent people.
A "Muslim feminist," if that isn't too much of an oxymoron to grasp, has written a condemnation of the theatrical and rather ridiculous feminist group Femen. There is much to criticize Femen about in the idiotic way they behave during their protests, but the issues they address are legitimate concerns about women's rights. And nowhere are women's rights given less status than in countries ruled by Islamic law.
Hajer Nali's article Femen's Islam-Bashing Disregards Muslim Feminism in Women's Enews makes the disingenuous apologies for Islamism under the guise of "Muslim feminism" all the more apparent. Tunisian Islamists have called for the death of Tunisian Femen activist Amina Tyler for posting a topless picture of herself with "My body in mine, nobody's honor" written on her torso. What stood out in Nali's article about this was her comment, "Extremists called for her to be stoned to death, which is condemnable."
Those last three words are indicative of Islamists' perfidy; "which is condemnible." In civilized countries, we don't need to make a special point that it is wrong to want to stone a women to death, particularly just for posting a topless picture of herself with a slogan asserting her own rights.
Why would Ms Nali feel compelled to add that, especially in a western publication?
Did she want to reinforce that, unlike other Muslim feminists who thought it was fine to stone Amina Tyler to death for her topless statement, she didn't agree with that sentiment? Was it to instruct those of us, or perhaps her co-religionists, who want to kill Tyler that we should not? Or was it an insincere but perfunctory nod to western, liberal sensibilities?
What is more of concern is that in a publication in a country where Sharia Law is practiced, "which is condemnible" would likely be replaced by ":which is demanded by the honor of Islam, and should be carried out immediately."
That is something we should be afraid of, and we should do everything in our power to prevent from spreading over here.
It explains a lot of why contemporary Islamists and Marxists often make common cause. Both have disdain for individual rights and freedoms, no respect for free speech (other than their own), and of course there's the whole 'killing people who don't agree with you' thing, of which those two totalitarian ideologies have long and storied histories.
In fairness, Islam isn't the only religion to have gone through such a phase. Christianity was much the same during the Middle Ages. But of concern is the fact that Islamists today are behaving the way The Inquisition did five hundred years ago.
If criticism of the totalitarian aspects of Islam is "Islamophobia", then Islamophobia is going to be a growth industry. But like Nazism and Marxism, Islamism is going to have its advocates. What makes Islamists particularly disgusting is the way they claim to be victims when they are criticized for seeking out and victimizing innocent people.
A "Muslim feminist," if that isn't too much of an oxymoron to grasp, has written a condemnation of the theatrical and rather ridiculous feminist group Femen. There is much to criticize Femen about in the idiotic way they behave during their protests, but the issues they address are legitimate concerns about women's rights. And nowhere are women's rights given less status than in countries ruled by Islamic law.Hajer Nali's article Femen's Islam-Bashing Disregards Muslim Feminism in Women's Enews makes the disingenuous apologies for Islamism under the guise of "Muslim feminism" all the more apparent. Tunisian Islamists have called for the death of Tunisian Femen activist Amina Tyler for posting a topless picture of herself with "My body in mine, nobody's honor" written on her torso. What stood out in Nali's article about this was her comment, "Extremists called for her to be stoned to death, which is condemnable."
Those last three words are indicative of Islamists' perfidy; "which is condemnible." In civilized countries, we don't need to make a special point that it is wrong to want to stone a women to death, particularly just for posting a topless picture of herself with a slogan asserting her own rights.
Why would Ms Nali feel compelled to add that, especially in a western publication?
Did she want to reinforce that, unlike other Muslim feminists who thought it was fine to stone Amina Tyler to death for her topless statement, she didn't agree with that sentiment? Was it to instruct those of us, or perhaps her co-religionists, who want to kill Tyler that we should not? Or was it an insincere but perfunctory nod to western, liberal sensibilities?
What is more of concern is that in a publication in a country where Sharia Law is practiced, "which is condemnible" would likely be replaced by ":which is demanded by the honor of Islam, and should be carried out immediately."
That is something we should be afraid of, and we should do everything in our power to prevent from spreading over here.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Canada`s New Democratic Party has reprehensible Communists sitting in Parliament
Alexandre Boulerice isn`t the only communist hiding behind the `progressive` mask worn by Canada`s so-called New Democratic Party, but he may be the stupidest of the lot.
This is not the first time the fanatic Boulerice has embarrassed Canada`s socialist Opposition party. Last year, as a rookie MP, he endorsed the terroist-enablers on the Sea Hitler Gaza boat who attempted to break Israel`s arms blockade of the Iranian-proxy terror group Hamas. When the support of the new MP for the Quebec riding of Rosemont la Petit-Partie became public, under pressure from NDP leader Thomas Mulcair, Boulerice withdrew his endorsement, but left no doubt about where his sympathies lay.
OTTAWA -- The NDP is in hot water over an MP's writings that praise communist pacifism and criticize Canada's participation in the First World War.
Writing on a left-wing Quebec blog, New Democrat MP Alexandre Boulerice mocked the conflict as "a purely capitalist war on the backs of the workers and peasants.
"The only ones to have refused this butchery, to have rejected the call of the 'sacred union' within each nation, were communist activists," Boulerice wrote in his 2007 posting on the blog Presse-toi à gauche (Hurry to the left).
Boulerice also sniped at Canadian soldiers involved in the Battle of Vimy Ridge, claiming that "thousands of poor wretches were slaughtered to take possession of a hill." Almost 3,600 Canadians died in the battle to take the strategic Vimy Ridge from the heavily entrenched German forces of Kaiser Wilhelm on April 9, 1917.
This is not the first time the fanatic Boulerice has embarrassed Canada`s socialist Opposition party. Last year, as a rookie MP, he endorsed the terroist-enablers on the Sea Hitler Gaza boat who attempted to break Israel`s arms blockade of the Iranian-proxy terror group Hamas. When the support of the new MP for the Quebec riding of Rosemont la Petit-Partie became public, under pressure from NDP leader Thomas Mulcair, Boulerice withdrew his endorsement, but left no doubt about where his sympathies lay.
Vivian Krause: Joyce Murray’s real backers are American environmentalist groups
With her opposition to Northern Gateway, Joyce Murray plays right into the hands of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, a New York foundation that is a vehicle of the famous family’s philanthropy. For a decade, the Rockefellers have been funding an undisclosed, multi-million dollar campaign to stop the Keystone XL, the Northern Gateway and the Mackenzie pipelines.
Related:
Liberal and NDP Proportional Representation pushers' open secret: It's about defeating Harper
At last! Someone's finally doing something about those long-haired weirdos!
Hamas is afraid of a Samson in their midst?
h/t Blazing Cat Fur
Hamas gets more like Iran every day but at least offers something free to Arabs. Long-haired youth are arrested and beaten before getting a crew cut.
h/t Blazing Cat Fur
Monday, April 8, 2013
Louis Farrakhan: still giving crazy racists a bad name
The U.S. government is working to murder 2 to 3 billion people worldwide using genetically altered food and depleted uranium bombs, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan told students at a school-hosted speech at Tuskegee University late last month.
Sunday, April 7, 2013
That popping you hear is the sound of heads exploding at The Toronto Star
TORONTO - Mayor Rob Ford's popularity got a boost from recent controversies, results of a new poll suggested Friday.
The Forum Research poll pegs Ford’s job approval rating at 49% — up almost 10% from two weeks ago.
The boost comes after a week of controversy swirling around whether or not the mayor of Canada’s largest city is battling a drinking problem and was allegedly asked to leave a military gala for being intoxicated.
Ford himself has vehemently denied the original Toronto Star story on the drinking allegations while Councillor Paul Ainslie has stood by his claim he asked the mayor’s chief of staff to remove him from the event.
Almost half ( 49%) of the Forum poll respondents said they approve of the job Ford is doing as mayor while 50% disapprove and 1% said they don’t know.
...Bozinoff said within the 49% who approve of the job Ford is doing there is a “small group” who have said they won’t vote for him again in the 2014 election.
“It’s a few percentage points but he’s going to start off (in 2014) with 40% of the vote right off the bat,” he said. “If there were two people running, he’d need 50% ... he’s not that far away.”As the blog Small Dead Animals puts it: "You know that last fight scene in The Matrix? Neo is fighting Agent Smith and is so much faster that he doesn't really have to concentrate? Smith tries to lay a hit, but Neo blocks them all with one hand while looking away. Yeah, The Toronto Star is Agent Smith."
Liberal and NDP Proportional Representation pushers' open secret: It's about defeating Harper
Two prominent Members of Parliament and Elizabeth May's predecessor as head of Canada's Green Party were the speakers Thursday night at what was billed as a Town Hall to discus the merits of changing Canada's electoral system to Proportional Representation (PR).
Liberal Carolyn Bennett and former NDP leadership candidate Peggy Nash along with the Green's Jim Harris were at the 519 Church Street Community Centre in downtown Toronto at what could more appropriately be described as a pep rally for PR and strategy session on how to defeat Stephen Harper's Conservatives.
The speakers, moderator, organizers and hundred or so audience members in the room, with the exception of one, were uniformly there to express support for PR and to find ways advancing it as the way Canada is governed. The gathering it should be noted, was not a typical cross-section of Canadian voters. The 519 Centre is a hub in what is commonly known as Toronto's Gay Ghetto, a bustling, neon-lit strip of bars, restaurants and clubs. The Centre itself is a meeting place for a number of radical groups that are considered to be extremist, even within Toronto's "progressive" leaning Gay community.
Dr. Bennett, the St Paul's MP, was the first speaker and confirmed that the crowd there all supported changing the electoral system to PR, so she didn't try to sell the concept. She did discuss how to sell it to the rest of the electorate. Ontario held a referendum in 2007 on proportional representation and it was resoundingly rejected by 63.13% of the vote.
The consensus from the dais was that the reason the proposition failed was due to insufficient time and efforts devoted to education about Proportional Representation and its supposed advantages. This assumption reflected an unfortunate arrogance all-too-common to our political classes which presupposes that the public is stupid, and when we make decisions of which "progressive" leaders disapprove, it's because we are "uneducated."
There were quite a few suppositions by the speakers in at the Town Hall and the most glaring was that everyone agreed that Harper's Conservative government must be defeated at all costs. Indeed, assuming a uniform outlook, they didn't even bother to disguise their motive for wanting Proportional Representation - that it was the best way to prevent the Tories from getting a majority government.
Dr. Bennett, who was a member of Paul Martin's Liberal government, has only taken on her fervent advocacy of PR since her party lost power, and embraced it further since the Liberals lost Official Opposition status. It doesn't require an exceptional measure of cynicism to guess at the motive for her new-found enthusiasm for change.
The discussion by Bennett, Nash and Harris made that enthusiasm all the clearer when they made it clear that the primary goal of electoral reform is that in through a system that necessitated cooperation between parties and made majorities more difficult, they would be able to keep Harper out of power. Oddly, no one mentioned the fact that when Harper had a minority government prior to the last election, the Liberals and NDP couldn't bring themselves to unite to form a minority government. There is probably a mathematical formula which calculates the level of desperation for power measured by the time since it was last held. I'm not sure of the actual figures for that equation, but the hunger from the Green, NDP and Liberal representatives to get more of it was palpable and made an appetite for any compromise to get it more palatable.
Their frustration was so apparent that one of the electoral devices discussed at the meeting was "vote swapping," which while not illegal, has a very unethical tinge about it. In essence, the practice would entail Liberal, NDP and Green voters communicating with each other and agreeing to trade votes in ridings where the other party's candidate had a better chance of defeating the Conservative. The main concern expressed about that by Dr. Bennett was not the ethics but the fear that the Conservatives might infiltrate those lists and abuse them.
It fell to Peggy Nash to be the voice of reason on "vote swapping," reminding the room that many people died so we could have a democracy with a secret vote, and she didn't feel abandoning it, even to defeat Stephen Harper, was the right choice.
A member of Liberal Leadership candidate Joyce Murray's policy team then spoke to explain her proposal that riding associations could make a choice to cooperate and perhaps not run candidates in order to bolster the chances of the strongest opponent to the local Tory.
The Greens' Harris argued that reform was necessary because the Conservatives negative ads are so effective that they can destroy the standing of their opponents with the public. I've argued before that attack ads are a useful component of our political process. After all, if a candidate who wants to lead a country is incapable of dealing with an attack ad from a fairly benign domestic political rival, how could they possibly function as a leader on the world stage, dealing with potentially hostile foreign interests?
After the presentations by the politicians, the floor was opened to questions from the audience. It was a moment of significant irony that I was the first person to ask a question and the response that followed. I was the only person who spoke out against PR at the meeting and pointed out that the two MPs on the panel had passed that minimum threshold of getting a plurality in their riding. If that bar were lowered and representatives need not get that but only a small percentage of the national vote, you were guaranteed to have, among other things, Nazis in Parliament.
That prospect is neither far-fetched nor unrealistic, because that is what is happening right now in Europe with their legislatures elected through Proportional Representation. But that point infuriated the panel's moderator, John Deverell. Visibly agitated at my pooping on his party and perhaps trying to invoke some version of Godwin's Law, he interrupted me and tried to prevent me from finishing my question, saying I was lying and didn't know what I was talking about.
During her presentation, Peggy Nash complained that Harper`s majority government didn`t allow proper debate and questions in Parliament. The irony of Deverell attempting to do just that in a gathering proposing to change that system seemed utterly lost on him.
But I refused to be bullied into silence and pointed out that it would be a disgrace that in a public meeting that ostensibly is for the purpose of improving Canada`s democracy, he was trying to prevent the asking of a question he didn`t like and I continued.
Raising another aspect that I felt would get traction with that particular audience, I noted that there are many people opposed to legal abortions in Canada and political parties who want laws to that effect. If at some point, in order to cobble a governing coalition together, the balance were to be held by a `Pro-Life" party, we are virtually guaranteed to have abortion laws in Canada again and I asked the panel to respond to that concern.
Jim Harris and Carolyn Bennett both spoke and in essence gave the same answer. They said that Canada would have to enact a higher threshold for party status than in countries like Italy and Israel, which are teeming with parties that only require 1% of the vote to get a place in their legislatures.
That response was not particularly encouraging. Even if it were as high as the 5 or 7 percent that Dr. Bennett suggested, fringe parties which would never be able to get a plurality in any riding in Canada would be able to have Parliamentary representation.
There are some basic facts about our system that those in our political classes who want proportional representation don't want to acknowledge and it's easy to understand why. They operate from the belief that many Canadians are disengaged from the political process because they feel "their vote doesn't count." There is plenty of evidence to indicate that is not the case. When there is an issue or politician people care about, then the voter turnout is high. Toronto during the last municipal election is a good example, where more than 14% more people voted than in the previous two elections. Lots of people wanted the change that Ford represented and plenty felt threatened by it and both sides came to cast their ballots.
But rather than their votes not counting, many Canadians remain disengaged from politics because there simply aren't many politicians, from any party, that people feel are worth voting for. In short, the problem isn't the system, it's the crappy politicians who inhabit it.
Another facet of proportional representation that went unmentioned during the "Town Hall" was how that system is actually less democratic than our current one. When we cast a vote, we don't vote just do it to choose a political party but a person to represent us. That's particularly important given that parties frequently run on platforms and policies they have absolutely no intention of implementing if they get in power (remember Jean Chretien's GST promise, and all the lies Dalton McGuinty's Liberals ran on?).
With 'first-past-the-post' each MP has been elected by at least a plurality of voters who the politician will represent. With PR, even in the proposed mixed-member system, political parties, rather than voters will select who gets to sit in Parliament. We would have a number of MPs who couldn't even get the most votes in their own ridings. That seems a step back in democracy, not forward.
The Greens' Harris, during the pro-PR pep talk, trying to energize the audience, said that a small group of people can make a big change and they could be the people to bring such a change about.
The room was filled with older people, some men with pony-tails, lots of macrame vests and shirts replete with cause-promoting buttons. Making histrionic speeches and complaints, they looked and sounded like since the 1960's, their politics have matured as little as their fashion sense.
Harris was right was right about a few people being able to make a big difference. But it's doubtful he picked the right group to expect from whom to expect any major achievements and that seems for the best. With their primary focus of implementing PR mainly as a tactic to get rid of Stephen Harper, a sincere effort to advance democracy was secondary, if at all on their agenda.
Liberal Carolyn Bennett and former NDP leadership candidate Peggy Nash along with the Green's Jim Harris were at the 519 Church Street Community Centre in downtown Toronto at what could more appropriately be described as a pep rally for PR and strategy session on how to defeat Stephen Harper's Conservatives.
 |
| Jim Harris, Carolyn Bennett & Peggy Nash at the "Town Hall" |
Dr. Bennett, the St Paul's MP, was the first speaker and confirmed that the crowd there all supported changing the electoral system to PR, so she didn't try to sell the concept. She did discuss how to sell it to the rest of the electorate. Ontario held a referendum in 2007 on proportional representation and it was resoundingly rejected by 63.13% of the vote.
The consensus from the dais was that the reason the proposition failed was due to insufficient time and efforts devoted to education about Proportional Representation and its supposed advantages. This assumption reflected an unfortunate arrogance all-too-common to our political classes which presupposes that the public is stupid, and when we make decisions of which "progressive" leaders disapprove, it's because we are "uneducated."
There were quite a few suppositions by the speakers in at the Town Hall and the most glaring was that everyone agreed that Harper's Conservative government must be defeated at all costs. Indeed, assuming a uniform outlook, they didn't even bother to disguise their motive for wanting Proportional Representation - that it was the best way to prevent the Tories from getting a majority government.
Dr. Bennett, who was a member of Paul Martin's Liberal government, has only taken on her fervent advocacy of PR since her party lost power, and embraced it further since the Liberals lost Official Opposition status. It doesn't require an exceptional measure of cynicism to guess at the motive for her new-found enthusiasm for change.
The discussion by Bennett, Nash and Harris made that enthusiasm all the clearer when they made it clear that the primary goal of electoral reform is that in through a system that necessitated cooperation between parties and made majorities more difficult, they would be able to keep Harper out of power. Oddly, no one mentioned the fact that when Harper had a minority government prior to the last election, the Liberals and NDP couldn't bring themselves to unite to form a minority government. There is probably a mathematical formula which calculates the level of desperation for power measured by the time since it was last held. I'm not sure of the actual figures for that equation, but the hunger from the Green, NDP and Liberal representatives to get more of it was palpable and made an appetite for any compromise to get it more palatable.
Their frustration was so apparent that one of the electoral devices discussed at the meeting was "vote swapping," which while not illegal, has a very unethical tinge about it. In essence, the practice would entail Liberal, NDP and Green voters communicating with each other and agreeing to trade votes in ridings where the other party's candidate had a better chance of defeating the Conservative. The main concern expressed about that by Dr. Bennett was not the ethics but the fear that the Conservatives might infiltrate those lists and abuse them.
It fell to Peggy Nash to be the voice of reason on "vote swapping," reminding the room that many people died so we could have a democracy with a secret vote, and she didn't feel abandoning it, even to defeat Stephen Harper, was the right choice.
A member of Liberal Leadership candidate Joyce Murray's policy team then spoke to explain her proposal that riding associations could make a choice to cooperate and perhaps not run candidates in order to bolster the chances of the strongest opponent to the local Tory.
The Greens' Harris argued that reform was necessary because the Conservatives negative ads are so effective that they can destroy the standing of their opponents with the public. I've argued before that attack ads are a useful component of our political process. After all, if a candidate who wants to lead a country is incapable of dealing with an attack ad from a fairly benign domestic political rival, how could they possibly function as a leader on the world stage, dealing with potentially hostile foreign interests?
After the presentations by the politicians, the floor was opened to questions from the audience. It was a moment of significant irony that I was the first person to ask a question and the response that followed. I was the only person who spoke out against PR at the meeting and pointed out that the two MPs on the panel had passed that minimum threshold of getting a plurality in their riding. If that bar were lowered and representatives need not get that but only a small percentage of the national vote, you were guaranteed to have, among other things, Nazis in Parliament.
That prospect is neither far-fetched nor unrealistic, because that is what is happening right now in Europe with their legislatures elected through Proportional Representation. But that point infuriated the panel's moderator, John Deverell. Visibly agitated at my pooping on his party and perhaps trying to invoke some version of Godwin's Law, he interrupted me and tried to prevent me from finishing my question, saying I was lying and didn't know what I was talking about.
During her presentation, Peggy Nash complained that Harper`s majority government didn`t allow proper debate and questions in Parliament. The irony of Deverell attempting to do just that in a gathering proposing to change that system seemed utterly lost on him.
But I refused to be bullied into silence and pointed out that it would be a disgrace that in a public meeting that ostensibly is for the purpose of improving Canada`s democracy, he was trying to prevent the asking of a question he didn`t like and I continued.
Raising another aspect that I felt would get traction with that particular audience, I noted that there are many people opposed to legal abortions in Canada and political parties who want laws to that effect. If at some point, in order to cobble a governing coalition together, the balance were to be held by a `Pro-Life" party, we are virtually guaranteed to have abortion laws in Canada again and I asked the panel to respond to that concern.
Jim Harris and Carolyn Bennett both spoke and in essence gave the same answer. They said that Canada would have to enact a higher threshold for party status than in countries like Italy and Israel, which are teeming with parties that only require 1% of the vote to get a place in their legislatures.
That response was not particularly encouraging. Even if it were as high as the 5 or 7 percent that Dr. Bennett suggested, fringe parties which would never be able to get a plurality in any riding in Canada would be able to have Parliamentary representation.
There are some basic facts about our system that those in our political classes who want proportional representation don't want to acknowledge and it's easy to understand why. They operate from the belief that many Canadians are disengaged from the political process because they feel "their vote doesn't count." There is plenty of evidence to indicate that is not the case. When there is an issue or politician people care about, then the voter turnout is high. Toronto during the last municipal election is a good example, where more than 14% more people voted than in the previous two elections. Lots of people wanted the change that Ford represented and plenty felt threatened by it and both sides came to cast their ballots.
But rather than their votes not counting, many Canadians remain disengaged from politics because there simply aren't many politicians, from any party, that people feel are worth voting for. In short, the problem isn't the system, it's the crappy politicians who inhabit it.
Another facet of proportional representation that went unmentioned during the "Town Hall" was how that system is actually less democratic than our current one. When we cast a vote, we don't vote just do it to choose a political party but a person to represent us. That's particularly important given that parties frequently run on platforms and policies they have absolutely no intention of implementing if they get in power (remember Jean Chretien's GST promise, and all the lies Dalton McGuinty's Liberals ran on?).
With 'first-past-the-post' each MP has been elected by at least a plurality of voters who the politician will represent. With PR, even in the proposed mixed-member system, political parties, rather than voters will select who gets to sit in Parliament. We would have a number of MPs who couldn't even get the most votes in their own ridings. That seems a step back in democracy, not forward.
The Greens' Harris, during the pro-PR pep talk, trying to energize the audience, said that a small group of people can make a big change and they could be the people to bring such a change about.
The room was filled with older people, some men with pony-tails, lots of macrame vests and shirts replete with cause-promoting buttons. Making histrionic speeches and complaints, they looked and sounded like since the 1960's, their politics have matured as little as their fashion sense.
Harris was right was right about a few people being able to make a big difference. But it's doubtful he picked the right group to expect from whom to expect any major achievements and that seems for the best. With their primary focus of implementing PR mainly as a tactic to get rid of Stephen Harper, a sincere effort to advance democracy was secondary, if at all on their agenda.
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Zombie Trudeau Video
Here's a video from the Zombie Trudeau walk that happened outside the Liberal; "showcase" of Prince Joffrey who will undoubtedly be anointed the new party leader
Welcome Back Ryerson Radio
Years ago CKLN was taken over by radical activists, leading to the station’s independent ownership. It functioned separately from Ryerson, but because it sat within our campus borders, still received funding from the Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU). Why did students have to pay for a station that excluded them?
Clearly, Ryerson doesn’t mind funding campus radio. During the CRTC’s investigation of CKLN in 2011, a referendum saw 86 per cent of students vote in favour of financially supporting their bid for the frequency.
But the community radio station gave students nothing to show for their money. In 2000, CKLN passed bylaws to prevent the university’s administration and faculty from sitting on its board, in contravention of CRTC statutes, and despite having been branded as “The voice of Ryerson.”
Read the article at The Ryersonian
h/t Marvin W
Feminazis attack University of Toronto Men's Rights Lecture
As I've written before, I don't find the Men's Rights movement particularly compelling. It seems like more of a harmless oddity than anything else.
But what has made it interesting lately is the hateful vitriol it has inspired in Women's and Gender Studies classes in academia.
One of the significant things Men's Rights groups is doing is challenging the preposterous, self-interested, psudo-academic facade of the ideological-based indoctrination occurring in Gender Studies programs.
Faced with these challenges, the radical who are immersed in identity-politics react as they usually do - by trying to shut down the free speech of people who they disagree with. That approach, better than anything, illustrates the vapidity and dishonesty of their agenda. What other reason would explain why they are so fearful of criticism that they react violently to try to shut it down?
I passed by the protest on Thursday outside the University of Toronto on my way to another event, but stayed for a minute of two to listen to what was happening.
As I approached, the protesters were shrieking "women hold up half the sky!." That saying is a quote from Chairman Mao, which suggests the totalitarian mindset of the Marxist infused Gender and Women's Studies Programs.
From another angle:
The Ryersonian has a full report, including videos, of the events that night.
GenuineWitty also has details and insight into the motives of some of the protesters
But what has made it interesting lately is the hateful vitriol it has inspired in Women's and Gender Studies classes in academia.
One of the significant things Men's Rights groups is doing is challenging the preposterous, self-interested, psudo-academic facade of the ideological-based indoctrination occurring in Gender Studies programs.
Faced with these challenges, the radical who are immersed in identity-politics react as they usually do - by trying to shut down the free speech of people who they disagree with. That approach, better than anything, illustrates the vapidity and dishonesty of their agenda. What other reason would explain why they are so fearful of criticism that they react violently to try to shut it down?
I passed by the protest on Thursday outside the University of Toronto on my way to another event, but stayed for a minute of two to listen to what was happening.
As I approached, the protesters were shrieking "women hold up half the sky!." That saying is a quote from Chairman Mao, which suggests the totalitarian mindset of the Marxist infused Gender and Women's Studies Programs.
From another angle:
The Ryersonian has a full report, including videos, of the events that night.
GenuineWitty also has details and insight into the motives of some of the protesters
This is just disgusting...but fun!
Chainsaw Maid in 3D (you can turn off the 3D if you don't have glasses)
WARNING - this is gory, gross and very, very silly!
UPDATE: YouTube removed the uncensored version, because they are a bunch of spoil sports, but here is the one they allowed to remain posted (and the uncensored rough cut is back up again!)
WARNING - this is gory, gross and very, very silly!
UPDATE: YouTube removed the uncensored version, because they are a bunch of spoil sports, but here is the one they allowed to remain posted (and the uncensored rough cut is back up again!)
Friday, April 5, 2013
Is rabble.ca implying that Jack Layton was a closeted homosexual?
The great playwright of the English Renaissance Christopher Marlowe wrote Edward II about the Gay son of the monarch Edward Longshanks (modern audiences might know the first Edward best as the villain of Mel Gibson's Braveheart).
Setting the tone, the play opens with Edward II's special friend Gaveston reading a letter from the new monarch which includes the lines:
My men, like satyrs grazing on the lawns, Shall with their goat-feet dance an antic hay. Sometime a lovely boy in Dian's shape, With hair that gilds the water as it glides, Crownets of pearl about his naked arms, And in his sportful hands an olive tree To hide those parts which men delight to see
The far-left website rabble.ca, published by the same-sex spouse of NDP Deputy Leader Libby Davies, is promoting an event called:
In its description, they note: As an undergraduate student at McGill, Jack Layton read and copiously annotated his copy of Marlowe's play. Join us as Dr. Jason Boyd connects the dots between Jack Layton and this classic 16th Century play.
It should be interesting which "dots" they connect between the former NDP leader about whom there was much speculation, and the tragic Edward II who also met an untimely end.
Setting the tone, the play opens with Edward II's special friend Gaveston reading a letter from the new monarch which includes the lines:
Pride, Prejudice and Politics: Jack Layton and the lessons of Christopher Marlowe’s Edward II
It should be interesting which "dots" they connect between the former NDP leader about whom there was much speculation, and the tragic Edward II who also met an untimely end.
The Israeli parliamentarian who dreams of a 3rd Intifada
As a sitting member of Israel's parliament, who has degrees from Israeli universities, he is living proof that the slander of Israel being an "apartheid" state is an outright lie.
But Zahalke, who is given to strange, irrational behavior, did his best to try to sell the lie to an audience of half-wits, self-hating Jews and Islamist and terror sympathizers.
Blogwrath was there and produced an excellent report which you can read at THIS LINK.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Zombie Trudeau Walk to Liberal "showcase" announced
A facebook event called Zombie Trudeau Lives has appeared and is described as follows:
| Half zombie walk, half political event. Pierre Trudeau has come back from the dead to challenge his own son for the leadership of the Liberal Party. Join us in true Zombie Walk fashion as we lurch through the streets of Toronto to descend on the Metro Convention Centre during the Liberal Party "National Leadership Showcase." Recreate the 1968 Liberal Party Convention—with the undead. See Zombie Trudeau give the most rousing speech possible for someone a decade in the ground. |
Zombie Trudeau walk will be this Saturday at 2 pm. Details are on the facebook page.
Is London, Ontario becoming Canada's Mecca for terrorists?
al Starzeera's resident Islamist apologist wants police to stop "hounding" the breeding grounds for terrorism. Haroon Siddiqui is correct that most tips police and CSIS receive about terrorist plots do come from fellow Muslims. Most Canadian Muslims are appalled by terrorism. But Siddiqui seems to have cognitive dissonance in recognizing that the reason those tips come from Muslims is because terrorism is being planned by other Muslims.
And it is in the Mosques, with the hateful preaching that goes on in many of them, where the seeds of that murderous violence is planted.
What happened to radio at Ryerson?
More disturbing than the lack of students in the office and studios were some of the questions on the application. One of the first asked if I had been a part of the previous board that had been voted out by CKLN members.
I had no idea that the station was rife with infighting and allegations of financial corruption. The strange application question referred to the ousting of program director Tony Barnes and then station manager Mike Phillips.
Toronto police were regularly summoned to membership meetings, and the Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU) withheld $100,000 in student levy funding. CKLN counter-sued for $500,000. The staff was laid off, and the locks were changed. With no programmers manning the boards, a loop of pre-recorded shows played from early March to October of 2009 in gross violation of Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) guidelines.
read the whole article at The Eyeopener
h/t Marvin W.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
The Globe's message to the Liberals' Prince Joffrey: When something is barbaric, call it barbaric
Jason Kenney, the federal immigration minister, deserves congratulations for releasing an updated guide for newcomers that refers to certain unacceptable cultural practices as “barbaric.” Those practices include any that “tolerate spousal abuse, honour killings, female genital mutilation, forced marriage or other gender-based violence.” The term “barbaric” is strong, but it leaves no room for misinterpretation. That is the most important issue here.
Words to remember, Prince Joffrey!
Words to remember, Prince Joffrey!
True Colors: World Socialist Website revamps to look like The Toronto Star
This is funny and certainly indicative of its leanings.
The website of the World Socialist Organization, or as you and I know them, the International Communists, have revamped their website and its new look seemed very familiar.
Evidently, as a tribute to a like-minded leader in the field of disseminating socialist propaganda, they have modeled their new look after The Toronto Star.
The Communists have caught on to the Star's trick that using red is too 'on-the-nose,' so they use Persian blue
The website of the World Socialist Organization, or as you and I know them, the International Communists, have revamped their website and its new look seemed very familiar.
Evidently, as a tribute to a like-minded leader in the field of disseminating socialist propaganda, they have modeled their new look after The Toronto Star.
The Communists have caught on to the Star's trick that using red is too 'on-the-nose,' so they use Persian blue
Canada's version of academic freedom: Queen's University cancels free speech
On the night of April 2, 2013 Queen's University administration and student union officials ordered the removal of a free speech display at the university. However, they did not only remove the canvas upon which students expressed their opinions. Campus security took the canvas and refused to return it to its owners, members of the Queen's Students for Liberty. This video shows the sequence of events.
Queen's Students for Liberty had booked a space in the John Deutsch University Centre for its "wall" - a blank space upon which students were encouraged to express themselves.
Some of the roughly 50 entries on the canvas, however, were deemed offensive by the school's Alma Mater Society, according to the student group, and school security removed the exhibit Tuesday evening.
University officials are expected to comment on the details later this afternoon, but have so far not said what on the wall was found to be offensive.
The Students for Liberty argued that nothing there violated Canadian law, and that the act of dismantling the exhibit is the worse crime.
"I am dismayed with the gross violation of free speech that we saw committed by Queen's last night" Jeffrey Waligun, president of the group, said in a release Wednesday. "It is one thing for a lone hooligan to vandalize a display ... It is far more disturbing when the university itself becomes the hooligan."
Politically Correct American Press will no longer use tern "Illegal Immigrant"
Caving to the tide of political correctness, American Press will no longer use the term Illegal Immigrant in its reports.
Doug Ford declares intention to run for Progressive Conservatives in next provincial election
Councillor Doug Ford, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s slightly less controversial brother, has declared he plans to take his family’s unique brand of brash politics to Queen’s Park and will run for the Progressive Conservatives in the next election.
On a personal aside, I've dealt with Doug Ford's office on occasion and found him, like his brother, to be exceptionally conscientious and diligent in making sure that constituents needs are taken seriously. He'll make a needed contribution to Queen's Park politics.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
My MP, Carolyn Bennett, says Canada's new Immigration Guide "insults and marginalizes the history and culture of indigenous people" in Canada
New CIC guide insults & marginalizes the history&culture of indigenous people in Cda cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/pu… pg 21 #cdnpoli #aboriginalDr Bennett references page 21 of Canada's new Immigration Guide to illustrate her point, such as it is.
— Carolyn Bennett(@Carolyn_Bennett) April 2, 2013
On that page, the guide devotes a paragraph to aboriginal peoples. Evidently, Dr. Bennett is bothered by the description of them having "interesting cultures and make important
contributions to Canadian society."
I asked via twitter how this is "insulting" but have not received a response. I suspect this is sheer partisanship of the sort typical of the Liberal Party, but if she has a more cogent response I will be pleased to hear it.
The English, whose legislative and economic system is the main foundation for Canada, received only slightly more ink in the guide and the other founding nation, the French, received even less.
Does the State Broadcaster finally get it?! A CBC Report on Canadians involved with Islamic terror
Canada is recommitting itself to fighting homegrown Islamic extremism following a CBC News investigation that revealed at least two Canadians were involved in an al-Qaeda-linked attack on an Algerian gas plant in January that left dozens of refinery workers dead.
London, Ont. natives Xristos Katsiroubas, 22, and Ali Medlej, who was believed to be about 24, were two of the militants responsible for the attack, a CBC News investigation confirmed.
According to the web site of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), "with the exception of the United States, there are more terrorist groups active in Canada today than in any other country in the world."
More here
h/t Marvin W.
Kelly McParland: The Star’s war on Rob Ford is a deceitful vendetta based on journalistic hypocrisy
Kelly McParland at the National Post is making some of the same points I have recently.
Good on him!
Good on him!
Ford hasn’t broken any laws, pilfered any money, abused any old ladies or cheated any constituents. He remains popular with a significant portion of the population despite his failings. The Star has resorted to character assassination because it has nothing else left.
Toronto's elites create a new Easter martyr
In this week following Easter, it is apt to think of a man who has strived to helped his fellow man, giving his days and nights to talk to the common people. This man, himself in the center of a maelstrom of controversy, is continually beset by those asking him to alleviate their problems, and quietly, without fanfare he has helped many of his fellows. Yet for his efforts, a jealous elite are threatened by this man's appeal to the common people in whose interests the ruling classes pretend to act, while only truly serving themselves.
Yet relentless in their slander and vilification of this servant of the people, the powerful not only fail to diminish him, but have created the image of a martyr standing bravely against the ferocious onslaught.
This martyr is Toronto's mayor, Rob Ford.
In the Editorial boardroom at the Toronto Star, the continual frustration at their inability to make a dent in Rob Ford's support must be competing with embarrassment that the highest elected municipal official in their cosmopolitan city is, in their eyes, a brash, overweight bumpkin. The pile-on is abetted by histrionic invective from the socialist weekly NOW magazine and disgruntled columnists like The Globe and Mail's Marcus Gee. Despite their best efforts, and unrelenting attacks that have gone on virtually daily since the former Etobicoke councillor declared his mayoral candidacy, they have done nothing to diminish his popularity with his core constituency.
They have portrayed Ford as racist and anti-immigrant, but in his home riding, made up mainly of immigrants and minority voters, he regularly polls overwhelming majorities, exceeding 75% of the vote.
What the Star's satraps have blinded themselves to is that rather than tear Ford down, their histrionic mudslinging is actually bolstering Ford's popularity.
At this point, one wonders what the anti-Ford media is up to? To whom are they trying to make their sale? The people who hate Ford don't need daily reminders. They will hate him no matter what. But these histrionic attacks only invigorate Ford's supporters.
Making a typically hyperbolic comparison to Marion Barry, the felonious former mayor of Washington D.C., even the Star's editor Bob Hepburn conceded that their scandal-mongering against Ford is unlikely to have any affect.
But like spoiled infants throwing a tantrum. they are just unable to restrain themselves.
Rick Salutin, the old dinosaur of the left The Star acquired after he was unceremoniously dumped by the Globe and Mail, has made himself look like a malicious clown railing against Ford. Salutin, whose appearance is daily becoming more like The Lord of the Ring's Gollum, before calling the mayor a "drama queen" said the Ford era has "been so much about him, it's hard to remember there's a whole city involved."
Actually, it's Salutin, his colleagues, and employers who are the drama queens who have forgotten the city. They have incessantly been trying to make Ford an issue at the expense of Toronto\s best interests and with complete disregard for journalistic integrity.
What are the issues the Star has been so worked up about? That Ford may have been drinking? That he solicited charitable donations on City letterhead he paid for from his own pocket and from which he derives absolutely no personal fiduciary gain? That he might have smoked a joint when he was on vacation in Florida? None of the accusations, even if they are true, suggest that Ford has ever done anything improper for enriching himself.
Ford has devoted himself, while facing ridicule and scorn, to doing what is right for Toronto's taxpayers. He has fought hard to keep taxes and costs down for Torontonians, and he has been as successful as anyone could be given the magnitude of the opposition he's faced.
Today, when Ford was the voice fighting back against proposals to raise taxes, which had skyrocketed under his predecessor, David Miller, The Star published a spiteful article focusing on the way the mayor expressed disdain at imposing taxes on Torontonians while neglecting the detrimental affect of the new levies.
When Ford said there is corruption at City Hall, the Star was more interested in trying to vilify the mayor than serve public interests by exposing the corruption.
Something the media elites in Toronto don't realize is that people aren't as stupid as they think they are; nor will they believe everything they are told, just because it comes out of the mainstream news.
There isn't a major city in the world without some level of corruption at the municipal level. And people know it.
In Toronto, billions are being spent on condo and commercial developments, often over the objection of local residents. A lot of money is being thrown around amid interests that are tied to that development and it may not be coincidental that more than one downtown "left-wing" councilor is living awfully well for someone supposedly making $102,608 per annum.
Ford has said he is willing to act for the will of residents when it comes to development. But rather than pursue potential corruption where it actually may exist, The Star, which makes a tremendous amount of money carrying advertisements for condos, is more interested in pursuing Rob Ford for potential technical errors in his efforts to help underprivileged kids with his school football foundation.
Just because Torontonians have ignored the will of the media elites doesn't mean they are stupid, or nuts as Star columnist Heather Mallick shrieked around the time she wrote a bizarre, disturbed, imagined wretched sexual tryst with Ford. Nor are they "hordes" conjuring up the images of barbarity attempted by the Star's resident condominium aficionado, Christopher Hume.
People aren't as stupid as Toronto's media elites would like. Voters not obsessed with their own insecurity are not afraid to have opinions that aren't sanctioned at One Yonge Street by the Toronto Star.
Ford was elected by a city fed up with social engineers and special interests who wanted to impose their vision at other people's expense, while telling the public they knew what is best.
What Rob Ford represents is the common person saying "we don't need a pompous, self-interested political class to tell us they know more about what's best for us than we do ourselves."
And as much as a sanctimonious political and media elite may hate it, what they are telling us to think isn't turning people against Ford as much as turning him into a hero.
Yet relentless in their slander and vilification of this servant of the people, the powerful not only fail to diminish him, but have created the image of a martyr standing bravely against the ferocious onslaught.
This martyr is Toronto's mayor, Rob Ford.
In the Editorial boardroom at the Toronto Star, the continual frustration at their inability to make a dent in Rob Ford's support must be competing with embarrassment that the highest elected municipal official in their cosmopolitan city is, in their eyes, a brash, overweight bumpkin. The pile-on is abetted by histrionic invective from the socialist weekly NOW magazine and disgruntled columnists like The Globe and Mail's Marcus Gee. Despite their best efforts, and unrelenting attacks that have gone on virtually daily since the former Etobicoke councillor declared his mayoral candidacy, they have done nothing to diminish his popularity with his core constituency.
They have portrayed Ford as racist and anti-immigrant, but in his home riding, made up mainly of immigrants and minority voters, he regularly polls overwhelming majorities, exceeding 75% of the vote.
What the Star's satraps have blinded themselves to is that rather than tear Ford down, their histrionic mudslinging is actually bolstering Ford's popularity.
At this point, one wonders what the anti-Ford media is up to? To whom are they trying to make their sale? The people who hate Ford don't need daily reminders. They will hate him no matter what. But these histrionic attacks only invigorate Ford's supporters.
Making a typically hyperbolic comparison to Marion Barry, the felonious former mayor of Washington D.C., even the Star's editor Bob Hepburn conceded that their scandal-mongering against Ford is unlikely to have any affect.
But like spoiled infants throwing a tantrum. they are just unable to restrain themselves.
 |
| We hates the Ford, my Precious! |
Actually, it's Salutin, his colleagues, and employers who are the drama queens who have forgotten the city. They have incessantly been trying to make Ford an issue at the expense of Toronto\s best interests and with complete disregard for journalistic integrity.
What are the issues the Star has been so worked up about? That Ford may have been drinking? That he solicited charitable donations on City letterhead he paid for from his own pocket and from which he derives absolutely no personal fiduciary gain? That he might have smoked a joint when he was on vacation in Florida? None of the accusations, even if they are true, suggest that Ford has ever done anything improper for enriching himself.
Ford has devoted himself, while facing ridicule and scorn, to doing what is right for Toronto's taxpayers. He has fought hard to keep taxes and costs down for Torontonians, and he has been as successful as anyone could be given the magnitude of the opposition he's faced.
Today, when Ford was the voice fighting back against proposals to raise taxes, which had skyrocketed under his predecessor, David Miller, The Star published a spiteful article focusing on the way the mayor expressed disdain at imposing taxes on Torontonians while neglecting the detrimental affect of the new levies.
When Ford said there is corruption at City Hall, the Star was more interested in trying to vilify the mayor than serve public interests by exposing the corruption.
Something the media elites in Toronto don't realize is that people aren't as stupid as they think they are; nor will they believe everything they are told, just because it comes out of the mainstream news.
There isn't a major city in the world without some level of corruption at the municipal level. And people know it.
In Toronto, billions are being spent on condo and commercial developments, often over the objection of local residents. A lot of money is being thrown around amid interests that are tied to that development and it may not be coincidental that more than one downtown "left-wing" councilor is living awfully well for someone supposedly making $102,608 per annum.
Ford has said he is willing to act for the will of residents when it comes to development. But rather than pursue potential corruption where it actually may exist, The Star, which makes a tremendous amount of money carrying advertisements for condos, is more interested in pursuing Rob Ford for potential technical errors in his efforts to help underprivileged kids with his school football foundation.
Just because Torontonians have ignored the will of the media elites doesn't mean they are stupid, or nuts as Star columnist Heather Mallick shrieked around the time she wrote a bizarre, disturbed, imagined wretched sexual tryst with Ford. Nor are they "hordes" conjuring up the images of barbarity attempted by the Star's resident condominium aficionado, Christopher Hume.
People aren't as stupid as Toronto's media elites would like. Voters not obsessed with their own insecurity are not afraid to have opinions that aren't sanctioned at One Yonge Street by the Toronto Star.
Ford was elected by a city fed up with social engineers and special interests who wanted to impose their vision at other people's expense, while telling the public they knew what is best.
What Rob Ford represents is the common person saying "we don't need a pompous, self-interested political class to tell us they know more about what's best for us than we do ourselves."
And as much as a sanctimonious political and media elite may hate it, what they are telling us to think isn't turning people against Ford as much as turning him into a hero.
Monday, April 1, 2013
As he prepares to hand the reins to the Liberal Party's Prince Joffrey, Bob Rae compares Harper government to Animal Farm
If Bob Rae read Orwell, it appears he didn't understand it very well. I like the Bobster, but the thoughtless partisanship you get from every Liberal MP is not something that instills much confidence in their ability to lead the country.
The Conservatives were able to make men of great intellect like Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff look like fools. Trudeau the younger has already given them a considerable head start.
As Justin Trudeau, the Liberal's Prince Joffrey, a man with his father's name but only a pale shadow of his abilities, readies himself to take dynastic throne, the Liberals are in for some major humiliation.
Orwell's "Animal Farm" is about the corruption of a revolution - Harper's treatment of Kevin Page and his MP's shows howReform has fallen
— Bob Rae (@bobraeMP) April 1, 2013
The Conservatives were able to make men of great intellect like Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff look like fools. Trudeau the younger has already given them a considerable head start.
University of Califonia professor under fire for telling the truth about Muslim student groups' links to terrorism
Benjamin is shown describing students from the Muslim Students Association and Students for Justine in Palestine as often being foreign students arriving at American universities from Muslim countries where they are "fed on a diet of anti-Semitism."
She accuses these student groups of having strong ties to terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as the Muslim Brotherhood, and adds that they take part in international campaigns to demonize and illegitimize Israel.
There have been many known terrorists who were involved with the Muslim Student Association which operates on North American campuses.
h/t BCF
And in other news about stupid parents...Saying ‘Vagina’ During Biology Class Leads To Investigation Of Idaho Science Teacher
In a formal complaint made against the 18-year Dietrich School veteran by at least four parents, McDaniel is chided for using the word “vagina” during a tenth-grade biology class on the human reproductive system.
They've done it again! Toronto District School Board's Muslim resource is an anti-Semitic, mysogynistic, anti-western hate propaganda website
Did you know that the anti-Christ will be a Jew? No? Well rest assured it's true according to the TDSB's go to resource on all things Muslim.
Plus:
"Women generally waste money in useless avenues even if they have to take a loan. It is sinful to waste. Whenever you intend spending, first examine whether there is any deeni benefit or any worldly need. After thoroughly pondering, if there is a need and a benefit, go ahead and spend. As far as possible avoid taking debts even if you have to undergo a little hardship."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)